War #11 - Suggestions and Feedback

[kaempfer13]

I would love to hear about that magic way to address inactivity upfront that allows me to focus on my own games

[Manuel]

Seems people are already expecting lower participation this war, perhaps more inactives. 

wat? 30 players only for three man pvp in the mid of the summer it's a lot, in january a normal pvp event wasn't able to gather 15+ players

Subbing is considered by Majofa in Team PVP; in fact, approval is required.  I think there's the rule of subbing max 1x a round.  That seems reasonable.  It's a team event.

it's totally different, a team event 2 loss = u are out the game over, it's probably impossible be eliminated before 4 rounds (1 month)
in war getting 2 loss/round is almost normal, how u can compare these 2 things?

BTW Manuel - you want me to stay serious.  I'll be more dangerous if I'm picking silly decks based on musical themes = can't mindgate me

wat

again, there is a rule against what u are implying with the kae and torb' situation

[worldwideweb3]

Spoiler for Hidden:

1. Subbing.  Subs need to be used and understandably so.  Players can't connect for a match from different time zones, personal conflicts, etc. Players go completely inactive for war.  But a trend I observed is that top players/Gens are often doing the subbing - Kaempfer, W3, etc.  This can give the subbing team an unforeseen advantage in match play and doesn't honor the auction/balance of teams aspect of war.  Less experienced players might not read the opponent as quick or play as optimal as the experienced veteran.  What about reducing deck upgrades (maybe -2) if using a sub? Or perhaps, the first 1-3 times using a sub don't have an upgrade reduction, but reduction occurs after that.

I am going to be a total ass here, but why would the general even want such a player on the team if they are penalized even further through substitutions? Already are decks for these players incapable of using full Marks and Nymphs like they would if allowed and planned to be subbed by someone like me in advance. But no, this substitution nerf was already put into place: the sub cannot use ultra rares the subbed player does not have.

Unknown players are often less active, veterans became known by being active. It is only logical for them to be more active for substitutions as well. If generals either take a chance with someone or are forced to live with a player that barely contributes and does not even make time to play matches, an upgrade reduction will only further penalize the team that is already hurt just from that player being inactive.

By looking at past wars I would rather look at this: how often has it truly occurred that a sub was completely unnecessary and done solely for the "lack of competence" of the subbed player? I think these cases are rare indeed, making a special rule for this case a low priority. Nevertheless, if a good option to prevent this presents itself I am all for it. I just do not think further penalizing teams for inactive players/players in need of substitution, is the solution.

I'm not asserting that reduction is the solution, which is why I used a "?"  It's more accurate to say the point is about inactivity which can lead to excessive/habitual subbing that can be imbalanced - as in the case of team Death.  The team is inactive, which leads a player to overly sub in war.  So, the suggestion is for WM to consider the effects of inactivity.  Seems people are already expecting lower participation this war, perhaps more inactives.  Address this up front.  In a way, TORB, this seems related to your feedback about auction/inactives and suggesting fewer players on a team by choice. 

Subbing is considered by Majofa in Team PVP; in fact, approval is required.  I think there's the rule of subbing max 1x a round.  That seems reasonable.  It's a team event. Why not some policy/monitoring in War (yea, I know solo WM and bigger fish to fry)?  There's not an overall problem with subbing.  Seems to be a pretty fair give and take from what I noticed, and mostly done from necessity. Gross inactivity is something else to be considered. Should 1 player on a team do so much subbing in war?  Torb, of Aether's matches with subs (5), you subbed all 5.  Don't see why RR or Deuce can't sub a few.  Of team Death's 13 subs, 12 are from Kaempfer.  In Round 8, Kaemp plays all 4/4 Team Death matches. It probably is very small, but something just doesn't look right when I was reviewing the war rounds.

The only concern that I have, if I can seriously call it a concern, is when subbing moves from the function of the team to being dominated by an individual (even if its because all other team members are inactive).  If noone/WM don't think this is important, let's let it rest. Move on to other suggestions and feedback then.

BTW Manuel - you want me to stay serious.  I'll be more dangerous if I'm picking silly decks based on musical themes = can't mindgate me

If you're gonna punish teams for subbing, then let them choose no one in war, because i'd rather solo it if possible.

[InsignificantWeeaboo]

If you're gonna punish teams for subbing, then let them choose no one in war, because i'd rather solo it if possible.

We should probably have vrt make a "Reigned by www3" banner.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

Id be up for this but players with no bids should be randomly assigned to teams starting with the team with fewest players. 12 people soloing war = not good

[iancudorinmarian]

I would love to hear about that magic way to address inactivity upfront that allows me to focus on my own games

ikr

[Zawadx]

I think the wording might have been a bit too harsh on Kalinual. But I can see why people are saying such harsh words - it can be very hard to sub constantly and then be criticized for it. I too have an emotional post on the topic: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war-archive/war-9-general-discussion/msg1214089/#msg1214089

And hey hey let's leave all the suggestions we can for the new WMs who aren't going to be me.

[RavingRabbid]

Sideboard is bad.

Now, about teams having less players.
I was in the team that suffered this problem the most last war, it being team Aether.  We (deuce, really) were forced to buy a player that ended never showing up to a game for a price high enough to get any other player in the auction. Part of the blame is on deuce, but really this sucks major ass because having to spend almost an entire deck on a literal piece of wood, willing or not, is ridicolous and sometimes can not be stopped. He actually thought he was going to get two but I worked out better than expected. That said, my proposals:

* If a team has less players than the limit and no interest in getting any, they get a STANDIN player for 0 cards/points/whatevers that can not play any ultra-rare ever and never gets access to any standard soldier boost. Event soldier boosts depend on WM choice and theme.

* If, instead a team wants to get an unbid player after the end of the auction, they can do so by paying the starting minimum price of the auction, and they will be able to play with/for that player accordingly to past substitution rules. This can also be "forced" if the previous suggestion does not pass.

* If a general is really into soloing wars and wants to play with all his magical ultra-rares, he can get a STANDINATOR-3000 for the price of the most expensive player in the auction + the minimum raise for the last auction phase.

I forgot how to link the various parts and how i wanted the post to go on, so since I don't remember if I had any other idea I'll just throw this here.

[Manuel]

so this guy without a bid (except team earth) http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war-auction/godofdeath500/ ended up in team aether because no one bid on him and u also was forced to pay 605?

[DANIEELA]

1-Teams can be reduced on 3 players
2-Generals can point out inactive players before next War and ban them that way
2-Start implying PVP Parasite system again

[mathman101]

I've been doing some thinking on the War rules and some of the discussion I've seen here, and here are some of my thoughts on a few ideas i had:

Flexible Team Sizes

Spoiler for Flexible Team Sizes:

I would love to see the ability to have gens not need to fill teams if they did not want to. It has worked in the 3 most recent Brawls, and I think it could work well being brought here to one of the other major events in our forums annual cycle.
When I think of it here in the pvp setting it would be having the additional spots still given their own opponent, deck, and soldier role but with the flexibility that any member from the team could play that match without having to utilize the free substitute for the round.

An example using Aether R1 from last war:

Spoiler for Example:

14	Gen. deuce22	Naii_the_Baf
17	RavingRabbid	Solaris
7	TheonlyrealBeef	Gen. ji412jo
16	Player 4	dragonsdemesne
41	Player 5	Player 5

Each of the 5 matches have their own deck and role.

Any of the 3 Aether players can play for Player 4 against dragonsdemesne. This may also help make the matches more likely to be completed as there is the flexibility of 3 different members time availability to make it more likely one can be online at a required time for dragonsdemesne. This could help when players from vastly different timezones would be paired up with little or no overlap in online availability.

For the fifth match Player 5 vs Player 5, again any of the 3 team members from Aether can play against any of the 4 team members from team Life.

The flexibility this provides could help those teams that have a combination of members who are busy and can barely play 1 match but can help with lot of testing/deck ideas, and those that may not have lots of ideas but lots of time to play extra matches if needed. (especially if Battle Round falls on weekends only, or on weekdays only, etc.)

At one point I had thought of also requiring the additional players (Player 4, Player 5) to limit the Ultra Rares/rares to that of the team member with the lowest amount, but decided agianst after further thought as teams are already at a disadvantage by having less members to bounce ideas off of for testing and such.

Depending on the number of players would determine 4, 5 or 6 matches, so that Generals could pick to either have a small team (I don't think Generals should be allowed to solo War) or a full team. With this option there may be a higher chance all players could be picked to help fill spots. If a player goes inactive mid-way through war, teams could then remove them for a "Player 5" or "Player 4" if they don't want to bid on the spare players if there are any left over.

Lt not Mandatory

Spoiler for Lt not Mandatory:

I think lieutenant should not be mandatory. While it is one of the better options due to having the second most upgrades, I think having the option to use an extra soldier role  in place of the LT could bring an additional strategic mind game to the table for teams. Some of the current soldier boosts may need to be buffed slightly to entice teams to try this out and utilize extra soldiers over the sound and steady Lt. At one point in history of our Wars all the roles were locked in for each player on the team and the Lt was the second in command for when the Gen could not perform their duties. Now that roles can be flexibly moved around I think that while the Lt still holds value and is a nice upgrade advantage, it should not be required to be played if an additional soldier boost would fit better for the teams opponents and match-ups.

Market in-element Discounts

Spoiler for Market in-element Discounts:

I think having in-element discounts would help some teams gain more access to their needed key cards. These do not have to be on all cards, but maybe on 1-2 vital cards that might be high priced because they are utilized heavily by other teams. This could be done by having the WMs predetermine which card(s) for each element are discounted, or give the teams the option to choose which card they want discounted. To combat the chance of teams abusing the discount though, a limit could be set for that card, maybe instead of 24 reduce it down to 20 or 18. This might help bring another strategic choice into play for vault building in that teams could choose an optional discount for reduced amount of specific cards or have the regular cards but maybe not get one as large or desired cards vault due not utilizing the discounts.

I think I had other ideas, but getting sleepy so I'll end it here. The main thing all my ideas have in common is strategic choice though, which is largely what I view War as being. Each decision made will either help or hinder, and there is never one right path to victory. We have had 11 different Wars, and no winning team has done exactly the same thing to get to the top, but the choices made to aim for the top were always done with strategic depth in mind.

[worldwideweb3]

I've been doing some thinking on the War rules and some of the discussion I've seen here, and here are some of my thoughts on a few ideas i had:

Flexible Team Sizes

Spoiler for Flexible Team Sizes:

I would love to see the ability to have gens not need to fill teams if they did not want to. It has worked in the 3 most recent Brawls, and I think it could work well being brought here to one of the other major events in our forums annual cycle.
When I think of it here in the pvp setting it would be having the additional spots still given their own opponent, deck, and soldier role but with the flexibility that any member from the team could play that match without having to utilize the free substitute for the round.

An example using Aether R1 from last war:

Spoiler for Example:

14	Gen. deuce22	Naii_the_Baf
17	RavingRabbid	Solaris
7	TheonlyrealBeef	Gen. ji412jo
16	Player 4	dragonsdemesne
41	Player 5	Player 5

Each of the 5 matches have their own deck and role.

Any of the 3 Aether players can play for Player 4 against dragonsdemesne. This may also help make the matches more likely to be completed as there is the flexibility of 3 different members time availability to make it more likely one can be online at a required time for dragonsdemesne. This could help when players from vastly different timezones would be paired up with little or no overlap in online availability.

For the fifth match Player 5 vs Player 5, again any of the 3 team members from Aether can play against any of the 4 team members from team Life.

The flexibility this provides could help those teams that have a combination of members who are busy and can barely play 1 match but can help with lot of testing/deck ideas, and those that may not have lots of ideas but lots of time to play extra matches if needed. (especially if Battle Round falls on weekends only, or on weekdays only, etc.)

At one point I had thought of also requiring the additional players (Player 4, Player 5) to limit the Ultra Rares/rares to that of the team member with the lowest amount, but decided agianst after further thought as teams are already at a disadvantage by having less members to bounce ideas off of for testing and such.

Depending on the number of players would determine 4, 5 or 6 matches, so that Generals could pick to either have a small team (I don't think Generals should be allowed to solo War) or a full team. With this option there may be a higher chance all players could be picked to help fill spots. If a player goes inactive mid-way through war, teams could then remove them for a "Player 5" or "Player 4" if they don't want to bid on the spare players if there are any left over.

Lt not Mandatory

Spoiler for Lt not Mandatory:

I think lieutenant should not be mandatory. While it is one of the better options due to having the second most upgrades, I think having the option to use an extra soldier role  in place of the LT could bring an additional strategic mind game to the table for teams. Some of the current soldier boosts may need to be buffed slightly to entice teams to try this out and utilize extra soldiers over the sound and steady Lt. At one point in history of our Wars all the roles were locked in for each player on the team and the Lt was the second in command for when the Gen could not perform their duties. Now that roles can be flexibly moved around I think that while the Lt still holds value and is a nice upgrade advantage, it should not be required to be played if an additional soldier boost would fit better for the teams opponents and match-ups.

Market in-element Discounts

Spoiler for Market in-element Discounts:

I think having in-element discounts would help some teams gain more access to their needed key cards. These do not have to be on all cards, but maybe on 1-2 vital cards that might be high priced because they are utilized heavily by other teams. This could be done by having the WMs predetermine which card(s) for each element are discounted, or give the teams the option to choose which card they want discounted. To combat the chance of teams abusing the discount though, a limit could be set for that card, maybe instead of 24 reduce it down to 20 or 18. This might help bring another strategic choice into play for vault building in that teams could choose an optional discount for reduced amount of specific cards or have the regular cards but maybe not get one as large or desired cards vault due not utilizing the discounts.

I think I had other ideas, but getting sleepy so I'll end it here. The main thing all my ideas have in common is strategic choice though, which is largely what I view War as being. Each decision made will either help or hinder, and there is never one right path to victory. We have had 11 different Wars, and no winning team has done exactly the same thing to get to the top, but the choices made to aim for the top were always done with strategic depth in mind.

I like the first idea, not against the second idea, and need to know more detail on the third to give verdict.